Article 15
Dr. House slayer
- Jul 4, 2008
- 24,673
- 4,916
- 183
Tell me in what way, my hypothetical operated outside the realm of how interrogations were conducted?
I never said it did nor did I say that it had to.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Tell me in what way, my hypothetical operated outside the realm of how interrogations were conducted?
Tell me in what way, my hypothetical operated outside the realm of how interrogations were conducted?
I never said it did nor did I say that it had to.
Tell me in what way, my hypothetical operated outside the realm of how interrogations were conducted?
I never said it did nor did I say that it had to.
That is what I am saying though, you are asking me a hypothetical that was outside the realm of how the interrogations were conducted. If I don't have credible indicators...etc... then I wouldn't have been waterboarded correct?
I never said it did nor did I say that it had to.
That is what I am saying though, you are asking me a hypothetical that was outside the realm of how the interrogations were conducted. If I don't have credible indicators...etc... then I wouldn't have been waterboarded correct?
Not necessarily. You are putting too much trust in what the gov't is telling you.
That is what I am saying though, you are asking me a hypothetical that was outside the realm of how the interrogations were conducted. If I don't have credible indicators...etc... then I wouldn't have been waterboarded correct?
Not necessarily. You are putting too much trust in what the gov't is telling you.
Even though it was Obama who released the information? It wasn't like the CIA or the DOJ released this information.
Not necessarily. You are putting too much trust in what the gov't is telling you.
Even though it was Obama who released the information? It wasn't like the CIA or the DOJ released this information.
Yes, even though it was Obama that released the information.
Even though it was Obama who released the information? It wasn't like the CIA or the DOJ released this information.
Yes, even though it was Obama that released the information.
This was secret information and the CIA and DOJ never thought the public would see it.
Yes, even though it was Obama that released the information.
This was secret information and the CIA and DOJ never thought the public would see it.
So?
You are doing an awful lot of dancing to avoid answering two questions ...
This was secret information and the CIA and DOJ never thought the public would see it.
So?
You are doing an awful lot of dancing to avoid answering two questions ...
No dancing just dealing with reality.
Let's say you are being interrogated and do not have information about an attack that is going to kill thousands and there is in fact no such attack coming. Despite this, the interrogator waterboards you repeatedly insisting that you divulge this information that you do not have.
1.) Would you consider yourself in the process of being tortured?
2.) Would you say whatever you thought you could, including lying or making something up, in hopes that it would get the waterboarding to stop?
So?
You are doing an awful lot of dancing to avoid answering two questions ...
No dancing just dealing with reality.
Whatever, dude, I'm done dealing with you. You clearly aren't brave enough to answer two very straight forward questions.
Feel free to bump this when you have a direct answer to these questions:
Let's say you are being interrogated and do not have information about an attack that is going to kill thousands and there is in fact no such attack coming. Despite this, the interrogator waterboards you repeatedly insisting that you divulge this information that you do not have.
1.) Would you consider yourself in the process of being tortured?
2.) Would you say whatever you thought you could, including lying or making something up, in hopes that it would get the waterboarding to stop?
If you do, I will gladly continue this converstation later on this afternoon when I wake up.
But under the criteria that the CIA used I wouldn't have been interrogated using waterboarding because I am not a high value detainee with credible indicators that would prevent, disrupt or deny an attack. Or in other words I'm not a terrorist claiming I have information of an attack.
Not good enough.
Answer the questions, please.
I just did answer your questions in the context that waterboarding was used. Lets deal with how waterboarding was used in actuality not how it could have been used hypothetically. It was used on high level terrorist with credible indicators that enhanced interrogations would prevent, disrupt or deny an attack. KSM basically told them I have information but
No dancing just dealing with reality.
Whatever, dude, I'm done dealing with you. You clearly aren't brave enough to answer two very straight forward questions.
Feel free to bump this when you have a direct answer to these questions:
Let's say you are being interrogated and do not have information about an attack that is going to kill thousands and there is in fact no such attack coming. Despite this, the interrogator waterboards you repeatedly insisting that you divulge this information that you do not have.
1.) Would you consider yourself in the process of being tortured?
2.) Would you say whatever you thought you could, including lying or making something up, in hopes that it would get the waterboarding to stop?
If you do, I will gladly continue this converstation later on this afternoon when I wake up.
I already answered these questions based on reality not in some quasi-reality world.
JFK authorized waterboarding in his adminstration...
Here you go...
Waterboarding Historically Controversial - washingtonpost.com
A CIA interrogation training manual declassified 12 years ago, "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation -- July 1963," outlined a procedure similar to waterboarding. Subjects were suspended in tanks of water wearing blackout masks that allowed for breathing. Within hours, the subjects felt tension and so-called environmental anxiety. "Providing relief for growing discomfort, the questioner assumes a benevolent role," the manual states.
Another opinionated rant that only projects your own worldview and nothing more.
ROFL... My world view is the only world view I give a crap about... you don't have to agree with it... you just have to know that you've no means to contest it.
Your problem is that you think your world view is the be all end all truth so no matter what I say you are going to take it as incorrect, not valid, a concession of defeat, or whatever else blusters off of your keyboard.
There is no "contesting" your view because you don't want to hear it...
So please, don't confuse my choice not to get into full head on debate with you as the "inability to contest" your views, I just see it as a complete waste of my time because you live in a world of your own ...
I instead, prefer to sit back and poke or pot shot at various moronic statements you make when it tickles my fancy because it's ammusing to see just how ridiculous you will get when someone points out that you are talking out of your ass.
But just so we are clear:
On this issue, like nearly every other, we differ. I am against state sanctioned torturing of people in an effort to gain intelligence, I include waterboarding within that definition. I believe waterboarding is torture because it is denying someone oxygen which in my view fits the mock execution definition of torture. We have prosecuted and convicted people for waterboarding in the past. I believe this practice goes directly against what we as a nation stand for and plays into our enemies hands. Am I right?
Let's say you are being interrogated and do not have information about an attack that is going to kill thousands and there is in fact no such attack coming. Despite this, the interrogator waterboards you repeatedly insisting that you divulge this information that you do not have.
1.) Would you consider yourself in the process of being tortured?
2.) Would you say whatever you thought you could, including lying or making something up, in hopes that it would get the waterboarding to stop?
... As I've repeatedly pointed out, they whose name will no-longer-be mentioned...
I don't find anything difficult in your position to understand. You believe that sometimes torture is okay when the end justifies the means and that is should be legal.
You also seem to believe that because our torture methods are not as bad as some of those used by others that we are somehow being moral about it.
I get it and I still disagree. I think it makes us no better than our enemies.
I don't find anything difficult in your position to understand. You believe that sometimes torture is okay when the end justifies the means and that is should be legal.
You also seem to believe that because our torture methods are not as bad as some of those used by others that we are somehow being moral about it.
I get it and I still disagree. I think it makes us no better than our enemies.
Ahh... well sure.. You've just stated that stressing someone who is overtly enaged in mass murder, for the purposes of PREVENTING MASS MURDER is the moral equivilent OF Mass Murder...
You're an imbecile... and most decidedly: part of the problem.